You are not logged in.
Nah. Not interested in Bezos. Flying rings are not my thing.
For Louis ... if you have the time, please consider performing Wikipedia lookups on Jeff Bezos, and then report your findings to the group.
Items that might be of interest would include the college where he studied, and his papers from that time if any are available.
(th)
And this is a great graph showing you exactly how bad these Covid vaccines are:
Take a look at this paper.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/fi … ccination/
I particularly like the following:
It is essential to account for adverse vaccine effects during the period of vaccination. Most publications on COVID19-vaccination in Israel only refer to the period after full vaccination. This is misleading and tantamount to only tell cancer patients their survival rates after they survived a successful treatment. Standard estimations of treatment success include risks during the treatment, which is often a period of increased risks, as suggested below.
The paper shows that vaccination for the over 60s is particularly dangerous.
And Musk has some real engineering knowledge doesn't he? Not sure, but don't think that's true of Bezos.
The difference between Musk and Bezos is level of commitment and being there on site.
Is it just me or does the orbital launch platform look too far distant from the launch tower? Can the tower be moved? Or am I just being stupid/taken in by an optical illusion?
Well that deserves a whoop! What a beautiful sight!!
Space.com: SpaceX installs 29 engines on giant Super Heavy Mars rocket (photos)
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hjRiDWhhuCarJo5Jxynzqj-1280-80.jpg"Installing Starship booster engines for first orbital flight," SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk said via Twitter yesterday (Aug. 1) in a post that included a photo of the rocket, with himself holding his young son nearby. And today (Aug. 2), Musk tweeted a close-up photo of Super Heavy's base, which is now bristling with Raptor engines.
As Calliban points out the use of the word "safe" in this context is meaningless unless defined. Even the makers of the vaccine accept it can have negative health consequences, so it is definitely not "safe" in that sense.
I would not wish to have the vaccine because I am relatively healthy and I have seen what it can do to healthy people. Why take the risk? In any cases I am pretty sure I had Covid in Spring 2020. It had only a very mild effect on me. I am not going to huge expense and effort to discover for sure if I have had it, but the NHS could usefully divert some of the billions spent on pointless test and trace to find out. If I had severe co-morbidities I might have a different view. To think of vaccines as "medicine" is childish.
How many vaccines would you personally be prepared to ingest each year at the behest of Big Pharma? 3, 10, 50, 200? Because that's the plan...they are developing oral vaccines. Once they can get you to ingest vaccines orally, the sky's the limit now they have managed to get mRNA vaccines past the regulator (it being possible to develop mRNA vaccines very quickly).
Jettisoning our natural immunity after billions of years of evolutionary development is an insane and dangerous project.
Louis,
Is there any amount of data that would satisfy you that these vaccines are safe for use?
There are other COVID vaccines besides the mRNA-based vaccines.
Are you arguing from a point of "this thing scares me", or are you arguing from a "I don't want to take my medicine" point of view?
If the former, we have over a billion people fully vaccinated at this point, around 1.15 billion in total. Someone would notice if there were a disproportionate number of vaccinated women having miscarriages 80% of the time. The available data is rapidly overwhelming whatever arguments you have over the exceptions that exist, and we're not seeing a concurrent epidemic of miscarriages. People didn't stop having sex because there was a global pandemic. I hope you know that.
If the latter, then it's not a good faith argument.
You have a very odd way of looking at exceptions as if they somehow prove some kind of general rule. At some point, every vaccine is new and untested. If we find statistically significant adverse reactions, then we stop using it.
A 3% death rate without the vaccine amounts to 210,000,000 dead people. You may be perfectly willing to sacrifice them to satiate your fears, but other people are not.
Your attempt to tone down Malone's comments is not very convincing, but, well, you seem to be learning...maybe beginning to realise that it is the co-morbidities which are far more important than Covid or the vaccine. I never denied the importance of co-morbidities. Healthy people recover from Covid and are then immune to it and by becoming immune they contribute to herd immunity, which helps everyone. Trying to stigmatise the unvaccinated as irresponsible is despicable.
You faux encouragement of debate is not reflected online where Big Tech are busy erasing Dr Malone's statements.
As for having children I have a daughter of child bearing age and that is enough for me to be interested in whether doctors, scientists and govenrment ministers are recommending or even cajoling young women to have the vaccine when they have no idea what effect it might have on a woman's fertility. Could that really be the case? Well you seem to admit it is. The only scientific study I have seen suggests the vaccine has a devastating effect in terms of miscarriages. Why you, government, doctors, the media and all the rest have no interest in this is beyond me.
Mr Berenson is an investigative journalist with far more knowledge about these matters than most government ministers, epidemiologists or other propagandists.
Your condescending tone isn't appreciated. I know way more about the vaccine, Covid, virology and epidemiology than anyone I am acquainted with who has had the vaccine. I will very likely know far more than my GP so I won't be going to them to ask for advice. In any case, any GP that told most people not to have the vaccine would be struck off the register by the GMC, Big Pharma's friend. The aren't really able to give an honest view.
Louis,
I listened to what Dr. Malone had to say. He spoke about what could happen and the problems they had back in the 1990s. He also spoke about the steps that the vaccine developers took to mitigate those problems. His points of contention seemed related to the potential for the spike proteins to provoke a disproportionate autoimmune response (they're using a synthetic delivery protein not found in humans, which doesn't necessarily make it good or bad), long term reproductive studies (this is admittedly a complete unknown, but there doesn't seem to be any blatantly obvious indicator of reproductive harm, as of yet), which obviously could not be completed inside of a year, and also determining whether or not the vaccines could potentially cause some of the problems that he and his fellow researchers encountered, specifically the fact that the unbound spike proteins can pass through the blood-brain barrier. However, the vaccine developers bound the spike proteins specifically because they were aware of that potential problem, based upon the research that Dr. Malone and his colleagues conducted. Dr. Malone even stated that he was aware that they did that during the course of his interview.
If you had a bad batch of the vaccine (unbound spike protein), could it potentially help COVID along and/or breach the blood-brain barrier?
Yes.
Are there long term reproductive studies that determine the effects from that synthetic protein ending up in the ovaries?
No.
Do we have any clear evidence that either of those two problems are significantly worse than what the virus will do to someone without the vaccine?
Not that I'm aware of.
It's a list of concerns, not something based upon concrete evidence, and Dr. Malone was pretty clear about that.
Is it always good to have an independent body double check and produce greatly detailed studies? Of course it is.
Regarding your "tweeter", Mr Alex Berenson, I'm very curious if either you or him actually read the supplemental information that goes along with that study, detailing the breakdown of comorbidities. Some of them, from both the control group and experimental group, died from maladies that would not seem to be related to COVID at all. There were also reactions to being injected with placebos. Maybe you should take some time to read that material. Since you posted the tweet here, I presume you can find it. If you can't, then let me know and I'll post it. If you're that worried about it, then why don't you ask your doctor about these things, where there's at least a chance of receiving some carefully considered professional medical advice?
You're, what, in your 60s?
I think we can safely rule out having more children, so that concern is a moot point for you.
You already know the COVID death rate associated with people who didn't have the vaccine onboard since we have a year of data on that. We've already vaccinated at least a couple hundred million people around the world. We know what the death rate is for those people as it relates to COVID, if only because the media sensationalizes it, so do the math on what your odds are with or without the vaccine, and for goodness sake, talk to your doctor about it. Anyway, do some more leg work and if you still don't understand what you're reading, then talk to a doctor.
"this is admittedly a complete unknown, but there doesn't seem to be any blatantly obvious indicator of reproductive harm, as of yet)"
There are many objectionable things in your post but I find that particularly repugnant when you know the authorities are encouraging young women generally and pregnant women in particular to be vaccinated.
I think I previously posted the study that showed 82% of vaccinated women were losing their babies in the first trimester compared with 10-26% being the average quoted in the literature.
You don't seem to get the point of that study I quoted. The vast majority of deaths "from Covid" happen in people who are already quite close to death. That's why it's irrelevant between the two control groups who dies of what.
You also don't seem to understand how social factors affect who gets vaccinated when.
We know for instance in the UK at least that African and South Asian groups tend to be less vaccinated but they are also proportionally far more likely to get Covid because of obesity and diabetes.
But you assume every death in those ethnic groups is a "win" for vaccination. It's nothing of the sort.
This is why I say you should only compare the healthy unvaccinated popular with relevant people in the vaccinated group.
Louis,
I listened to what Dr. Malone had to say. He spoke about what could happen and the problems they had back in the 1990s. He also spoke about the steps that the vaccine developers took to mitigate those problems. His points of contention seemed related to the potential for the spike proteins to provoke a disproportionate autoimmune response (they're using a synthetic delivery protein not found in humans, which doesn't necessarily make it good or bad), long term reproductive studies (this is admittedly a complete unknown, but there doesn't seem to be any blatantly obvious indicator of reproductive harm, as of yet), which obviously could not be completed inside of a year, and also determining whether or not the vaccines could potentially cause some of the problems that he and his fellow researchers encountered, specifically the fact that the unbound spike proteins can pass through the blood-brain barrier. However, the vaccine developers bound the spike proteins specifically because they were aware of that potential problem, based upon the research that Dr. Malone and his colleagues conducted. Dr. Malone even stated that he was aware that they did that during the course of his interview.
If you had a bad batch of the vaccine (unbound spike protein), could it potentially help COVID along and/or breach the blood-brain barrier?
Yes.
Are there long term reproductive studies that determine the effects from that synthetic protein ending up in the ovaries?
No.
Do we have any clear evidence that either of those two problems are significantly worse than what the virus will do to someone without the vaccine?
Not that I'm aware of.
It's a list of concerns, not something based upon concrete evidence, and Dr. Malone was pretty clear about that.
Is it always good to have an independent body double check and produce greatly detailed studies? Of course it is.
Regarding your "tweeter", Mr Alex Berenson, I'm very curious if either you or him actually read the supplemental information that goes along with that study, detailing the breakdown of comorbidities. Some of them, from both the control group and experimental group, died from maladies that would not seem to be related to COVID at all. There were also reactions to being injected with placebos. Maybe you should take some time to read that material. Since you posted the tweet here, I presume you can find it. If you can't, then let me know and I'll post it. If you're that worried about it, then why don't you ask your doctor about these things, where there's at least a chance of receiving some carefully considered professional medical advice?
You're, what, in your 60s?
I think we can safely rule out having more children, so that concern is a moot point for you.
You already know the COVID death rate associated with people who didn't have the vaccine onboard since we have a year of data on that. We've already vaccinated at least a couple hundred million people around the world. We know what the death rate is for those people as it relates to COVID, if only because the media sensationalizes it, so do the math on what your odds are with or without the vaccine, and for goodness sake, talk to your doctor about it. Anyway, do some more leg work and if you still don't understand what you're reading, then talk to a doctor.
Felix's latest explaining the incredible rate of progress at Boca Chica as Space X drives towards the first orbital launch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6YdTgA4FM
My interpretation of all this is that a September launch is a distinct possibility assuming Space X can get FAA permission.
I was always quite taken by the atom bomb rocket concept...you had on board a series of small atom bombs, that you released and placed behind a shield. When the bomb went off you would speed up to very fast speeds. Presumably, you would accelerate with each bomb until you reached a significant proportion of the speed of light.
Google: please show difference between chemical and atomic energy
http://chemsite.lsrhs.net/Nuclear/chemN … rence.html
The difference between chemical and nuclear energyhttp://chemsite.lsrhs.net › Nuclear › chemNucDifference
The difference between chemical and nuclear energy · The amount of chemical energy typically released (or converted) in a chemical explosion is: 5 kJ for each ...
Missing: examples | Must include: examplesChemistry 2
advanced search
The difference between chemical and nuclear energy
Chemical Energy
Potential energy that can be converted to other forms, primarily heat and light, energy when bonds form.
The stronger the bond the more chemical energy that can be converted.
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is not related to the formation of chemical bonds (which are due to the interactions of electrons).
Nuclear energy is the energy that can be converted to other forms when there is a change in the nucleus of an atom.
The nuclear change can be one of three basic processes:
Splitting of the nucleus
Fusing two nuclei to form a new nucleus
Releasing high energy electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays) to form a more stable version of the same nucleus.
Comparison of energy conversion
The amount of chemical energy typically released (or converted) in a chemical explosion is:
5 kJ for each gram of TNT
The amount of nuclear energy typically released by an atomic bomb is:
100,000,000 kJ for each gram of uranium or plutoniumThis comparison shows that (if it is accurate) the ratio beween chemical energy and atomic energy is (about) 5:100,000,000 or 1:20,000,000)
Extrapolating and making due allowance for approximation:
A space craft using chemical energy will require 20,000,000 times more mass than one powered by atomic energy.
(th)
We've followed Space X pretty closely and they are of course a private company.
One thing I would mention is that if we get to the position where we have developed effective microwave or laser propulsion, then the ability to deliver huge power from something like the iron-air battery could be a real plus. The technology has been shown to work with very light loads.
For Louis re new topic ...
You've created the potential for a new way-of-doing-things with this new topic, and I'm hoping you will consider following up with periodic updates.
There is nothing in the charter of NewMars (as far as I can tell) that prohibits a member from following a company closely, so I'm hoping you will find time to update this topic every week or so. There is nothing controversial about the growth of a commercial enterprise, so controversy would not normally be a part of the aura of this new topic. Instead, steady growth and progress reports are what might reasonably be expected.
It is unlikely anyone else will assume responsibility for tracking this company. The opportunity is all yours. I hope you have the time and energy to invest.
(th)
Surely you must recognise that the iron-air (Form Energy) battery is a a huge leap forward If that works as claimed (and there is good reason to think it does) then cheap and reliable energy is within reach for most nations on Earth. Energy infrastructure is expensive and takes time to replace but I feel this is a real game changer.
tahanson43206,
For whatever it's worth to you, I've read a steady stream of claims over the years stating that some new process was just on the verge of becoming cost-competitive with the existing gas and liquid fuel extraction technologies. Precisely none of them were ever as cost-effective, nor able to be implemented at the scale required, hence they are not used at any scale beyond egregiously expensive laboratory experiments, thus why we continue to drill for oil and gas. That said, I went to their website where I learned nothing at all about the process they're using, except for their marketing claims. If they can actually do what they claim they can do, then my hats off to them, good on 'em for their hard work and ingenuity, and I hope they become rich. Could this new process be the silver bullet humanity need? Well... Let's see if we can implement it at scale. I wish them all the best, because humanity and America need a win.
Incidentally, Calliban's understanding of the efficiency of biological photosynthesis processes, as compared to all power-to-liquid processes I've ever read about, is inline with my own understanding of the relative efficiencies of the various different processes to produce liquid fuels. In point of fact, algae biofuels very nearly were cost-competitive with extracted liquid fuels a decade ago. They came in at a cost literally pennies above the cost of extracted liquid hydrocarbon, even at limited scale, but then the price of extraction radically decreased. Nothing is impossible, but I tend to be very skeptical of such fantastic claims. I do have faith that these new nanotechnology processes that use materials like CNT can radically alter what humanity is able to do.
Ultimately, there seem to be 3 practical solutions to reducing humanity's energy requirements to something remotely sustainable into perpetuity (both here on Earth and on Mars):
1. Improving the efficiency and longevity of our lighting, heating / cooling / ventilation, and motor vehicles. The fewer the number of these machines that require frequent replacement, the less waste which will be generated, the less recycling which must occur, and the less energy that must be expended to produce replacements from design engineering based upon "planned obsolescence".
2. Making the most energy dense fuels that we know how to use, primarily nuclear fission at this time. This is a very unpopular choice with some types of very ideologically-motivated people, but they may simply have to learn to accept engineering reality. It is simply not possible to reduce waste and energy expenditure by using the least dense types of energy sources. There is plenty of math and science behind this, but most people don't actually accept the math and science when it runs afoul of their religion or ideology.
3. Manufacturing of machines, however simple or complex, must be done with such a high degree of quality that the finished product will last for decades. To that point, "planned obsolescence" must come to an end and recycling of nearly everything must be industrialized at a planet-wide scale to preclude the need for ever greater quantities of raw materials. It's a lot harder than most people think to sell the idea of built-in quality and longevity because it costs more, but you either pay now or pay even more later on. Everyone says they want quality, but they don't actually want to pay for it. Well... You can't have it both ways.
Those three solutions really are the name of the game. They have profound implications and require incredible technology, but they're practical and achievable with current technology. The combination of rapid and inexpensive CNC machining, 3D printing, reliable computer-control, and nanotechnology provide the foundation for the technologies that are ultimately sustainable. Energy, the master resource, has been abundantly provided by the Earth in the form of fissile or fertile nuclear fuels. There will be no "running out" of these fuels for many centuries, by which time even more advanced nuclear fuels such as Deuterium / Tritium or Hydrogen / anti-Hydrogen should become available. Until then, we have something that works reliably when operated by well-educated and well-trained personnel. It's no accident that the US Navy has been able to operate dozens of mobile nuclear reactors without incident for longer than I've been alive. All irrational fear aside, the only explanation that carries water is that nuclear fission is fundamentally sound and works as advertised.
And further to the previous post, here's some real science as opposed to hysterical propaganda:
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status … 35/photo/1
A double blind trial of the Pfizer vaccine showed 15 vaccinated people died and 14 unvaccinated people died during the trial period.
The alleged "efficacy" of the vaccine is a chimera.
You have to remember that in national figures the "unvaccinated" part of the population will include people with chaotic lifestyles and serious addiction problems. They will clearly be vulnerable to Covid disease. The unvaccinated also includes many people near the end of life who cannot be vaccinated. Again they are very vulnerable to Covid infection and dying from the disease.
The real comparison should be between unvaccinated healthy people at all ages and (a) their vaccinated counterparts and (b) their healthy vaccinated counterparts.
Yes, I read a review of that book. Interesting stuff. It's also worth noting that lots of animals enjoy getting drunk on fomented fruit - which is certainly a good way of piling in the calories, that then get you through lean periods.
CSPAN offers a video interview with the author of a new book: "Drunk"
It is a serious study of the importance if inebriation to the smooth functioning of society for thousands of years.
There is an argument advanced in the book that the desire for alcohol led to settling down to raise grain, after thousands of years as hunter/gatherers, rather than the commonly accepted hypothesis that grain came first.
The author argues at great length that social inebriation has been codified for thousands of years, and that societies that forego alcohol must develop similar mechanisms for reducing normal human distrust.
Hardcover Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization Book
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to TwitterISBN: 0316453382
ISBN13: 9780316453387
Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization
by Edward Slingerland
Empty Star(th)
Yes, not that I understand the technology, but it appears the new patented cathode technology they bought in has made all the difference in being able to build a reliable and cost effective battery.
I haven't yet seen any estimates on how cheaply they can produce a KwHe. It's looking like the capital cost might be quite trivial spread over the life of the battery. So it's down to how the land, installation, ongoing maintenance and materials costs feed through. Anything under 15 cents per KwHe will certainly make green energy storage commercially doable in my view.
Thanks to Louis for this new dedicated topic to a single company and technology.
Just Have a Think
291K subscribers
Iron Air batteries use cheap, non toxic, abundant materials and potentially have a far higher energy density than Lithium Ion batteries. The technology was first developed by NASA in the seventies, but no major commercial application has ever come to fruition. Now though, a US company, backed by some pretty big investors, has developed a grid scale iron air battery that could be a real industry disruptor.I was not aware this was first studied by NASA, but I ** do ** know that NASA has been trying to commercialize discoveries for many years. It sure does seem to have taken a while for this one to find it's way, but now sure does look like the right time.
(th)
So you're essentially saying we can replace natural immunity (our legacy from billions of years of evolution) with hundreds of vaccines (that's the plan, in case you don't realise) without any negative consequences. I seriously doubt that.
You won't take my word but how about the word of the inventor of the mRNA technology that is the basis for these new vaccines? I think he's qualified to speak on the subject, don't you?
Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA technology, which has been used to create the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines. He has been speaking out about the dangers of the COVID shot, such as the damages the Coronavirus spike protein causes in the body. In this interview with Del Bigtree, Dr. Robert Malone calls for a stop of COVID vaccines. He explains that the COVID vaccine can cause enhanced immune response, which creates a worse reaction when exposed to the natural coronavirus. He says that it can create autoimmunities in the the body. Dr. Robert Malone also said that the spike protein is the most dangerous part of the virus (which is in the COVID vaccine) is similar to spike proteins in our bodies, and can open up (not just pass through) the blood brain barrier. This has very dangerous implications for the human body, and why there have been so many adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine.
https://vaccinefreedom.wordpress.com/20 … ovid-shot/
Everyone who has now been vaccinated has billiions of these spike proteins which the inventor of mRNA technology says are dangerous.
Maintaining good health throughout life is a marathon event, not a sprint. We might not see the full negative consequences of these vaccines for several years.
Of course Dr Malone might be wrong...but it begs the question of why the health authorities completely ignore these health concerns and always, but always, side with Big Pharma.
It's perfectly possible a "big mistake" has been made:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021 … an-damage/
“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
Louis,
I am going to give the same warning to you that I gave to clark. Stop insulting each other.
I understand your reasoning behind not getting vaccinated and your family history with adverse reactions to vaccines, but I also think it's a substantial risk at your age. What recommendation on vaccination has your doctor given to you?
I hope everyone's decision works out for them, but the simple math on this issue only runs in one direction.
The iron-air age!
Drugs of various types including alcohol have been a huge part of human biological and cultural evolution. Most humans are highly evolved to tolerate alcohol for instance.
Drugs and alcohol seem to have a very strong connection with creativity in the arts and even with science to perhaps a smaller extent.
How a human society on Mars copes with this issue will be fascinating to see.
I think there is a strong likelihood that a puritanical approach will dominate at the outset (although nearly all the lunar astronauts were big drinkers back on Earth, I don't think the Apollo Missions saw any substance use - apart from authorised psychoactive medication of course).
However as the specification for Mars residency becomes less demanding I am sure we will see people getting to Mars who want to grow marijuana, or foment alcohol.
Maybe on Mars there is an argument for having regular festivals where people adopt a Bacchanalian approach but one bounded by safety considerations given the risks of living in a pressurised environment.
You are peddling complete nonsense. There is no single "science" on any of these controversial matters: lockdown efficacy, mask efficacy, Covid transmission, vaccine efficacy (as opposed to natural herd immunity), or efficacy of test and trace. You may be able to find scientific papers that support your prejudices and liking for totalitarianism but I would be able to find plenty of peer reviewed scientific papers that directly contradict your ideological certainties.
That you have to resort to personal insult ("cretins" - actually it was originally a French word, ie "Christian" applied to people with what we would now call special needs, by religious orders to emphasise their moral worth as Christian souls) shows the paucity of your argument.
Do you really think that because we vaccinate against one pathogen, all pathogens are going to give up trying to invade old people's diseased and poorly functioning lungs? If you do, then you must have poor education, limited intellect and an absence of basic logic.
And even if an old person somehow avoids death by respiratory disease (pneumonia used to be called the "old man's friend" because it was a relatively peaceful and dignified path to death) what awaits them? Septicemia, leading to amputation of limbs? Dementia, so that they forget who their loved ones are? Parkinson's disease leading to a non-functioning frozen state with no control over bodily functions? Or maybe they can just look forward to dying in agony from any number of cancers gnawing away at their innards, their lungs, their bones their brain?
Your thoughtless virtue signalling is vomit-inducing.
None of you know better than the scientists that study this. none of you know better than the physicians that live this. none of you know better than the infectious disease experts who have spent a lifetime in population health policy. You cretins with your poor education, your limited intellect, and your haphazard approach to basic logic, you represent everything that shows the Mars Society is a mistake.
A colony on Mars with just one of you is enough reason to point out why the idea is untenable. You are jokes. Sad, sad jokes.
Those with Covid vaccination die at a lower, statistically significant , rate than those that are unvaccinated. Those with covid vaccination, are hospitalized less than those without. Those with covid vaccination are less infectious, based on statistically significant results, than those that are not vaccinated. You have to be a god dam moron to not see any of this with clarity.
Oh, hey mars, where we can all live in an enclosed space, but everyone can kind of just feel themselves out on if they want to get the vaccine for a highly contagious disease. Pathetic are the replies that decide to argue with me.
We are well down the road. It's a race between the UK, USA and France I think to become the first democracy to convert entirely to totalitarianism. The UK's elections are still relatively honest, unlike those in the USA, where mail in ballots have been weaponised to deliver a permanent Democrat majority. Macron seems to be the most fiercely anti-democratic leader in the West. In no country can people speak freely any longer about issues of concern.
This from the UK. Journalists face up to 14 years in prison for publishing stories that embarrass the government. Embarrass them in front of whom? Their own people?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … hange.html
This would appear to me to fly in the face of the idea that government should be accountable to the people for its actions. These creepy politicians clearly do not think that they should be accountable for their own actions. Is this not the definition of tyranny? The idea that one is entitled to rule because God ordained that they occupy a position of power? The absence of freedom to speak would appear to me to be incompatible with the concept of representative democracy. Without that freedom, even an elected leader is a tyrant, because the freedom to choose is meaningless without the freedom to receive and disseminate information without fear of persecution.
I do not believe that the UK has ever been ruled by the will of the people. And with each passing day, we appear to moving further from that idea. Usually, this marks the point where an oppressed populous picks up guns and removes the tyrant from power and puts in place a proper constitution that limits the power of government. How much more BS do we have to tolerate before that happens?
You're making a lot of uncited claims here.
We've never attempted a 100% whole population vaccination programme for a respiratory disease. Never. Why does this one pathogen require 100% coverage?
Comparing "Covid deaths" between vaccinated and unvaccinated is a stupid approach. You need to compare deaths.
You also need to see what's happening to the rest of your health services (crumbling) thanks to Covid obsession/hysteria and the mortality rates associated with Covid lockdowns and masking.
If you are saying elderly people should not expect to die, then you are living in rejection of reality. Of course they are going to die in a few years and we certainly shouldn't destroy the health of young people in order to give them a few months of life.
Louis,
Data from one country DOES NOT make vaccines a failure! Vaccines work, but only when you use them. The entire point of vaccinating everyone was to cut off COVID's host reservoir, so it didn't have time to mutate again and resume killing people. Well, guess what? Too late for that now! There is no such thing as a 100% effective 100% safe silver bullet that you can fire backwards at an angle and still hit the target. Medicine can't make anything like that, because even though I'm more genetically similar to a random man I've never met from Africa than a puppy is to its own mother, genetic variation ensures that no vaccine can EVER be 100% effective.
Here's something they won't tell you when you arrive in the hospital with a gunshot wound (but it's still true):
You can inject simple saline solution into some people and kill them. The number of people that applies to is vanishingly small and 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 (it's actually way, way less than that, but go with the example), people die because they don't get the fluids pumped into them by an IV, but yeah, that one person out there would die if we injected them with replacement fluids following blood loss, so that must mean that we let the other 999,999 die because of that one person out there that we can't save.
We have vaccinated 159 million Americans. 5,492 were hospitalized with COVID afterwards and 791 of those died. What we will never know is if they already had COVID-19 BEFORE they were fully vaccinated.
Can you guess why we would never know that?
Here's a tiny hint:
When my family went to get our COVID vaccines, nobody from the military bothered to test any of us for COVID first.The number of deaths from anything but COVID, that are related to the vaccine, are vanishingly small. Now that we know what those risk factors are, we've started testing for them and reviewing medical history. That is a major reason why we DO NOT dispense medical advice on this forum, and instead tell people to TALK TO THEIR DOCTOR. A doctor can order tests for the types of diseases or disorders that would disqualify someone from taking a COVID vaccine.
Now let's do a little math (yes, that icky stuff):
I use 400,000,000 as the total American population figure, which includes all the illegals (they're living here, so they count)
0.000004974842767 <- This is the fraction of Americans who died who were vaccinated.
0.0000019775 <- This is COVID vaccine deaths as a fraction of the total American population.
0.001525 <- This is the fraction of Americans who died who were not vaccinated.0.001525 (unvaccinated COVID deaths) / 0.0000019775 (vaccine COVID deaths) = 771.175726927939317
771 * 792 (number of vaccinated people who died from COVID) = 610,632 <- Ta-Da! (we checked our work)
THAT MEANS YOU'RE 771 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE WITHOUT A COVID VACCINE!
MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN AMERICA FROM COVID IN THE PAST 2 DAYS THAN FROM 159,000,000 VACCINES GIVEN!
AND YES, I'M AWARE THAT MOST DEATHS ARE ELDERLY.
SO WHAT?
SCREW THEM FOR BEING OLD?
GUESS WHAT ELSE, THOUGH?
THE PEOPLE WHO DIED AFTER BEING VACCINATED ARE THE SAME ONES THAT WOULD HAVE DIED WITHOUT THE VACCINE.
DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD ALLOW 771 TIMES MORE OF THAT SAME VULNERABLE GROUP TO DIE ANYWAY?
HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO IGNORE NUMBERS LIKE THAT?
Louis,
louis wrote:Your starting point with nuclear power will be something like 10 cents per KwHe. Your starting point for surplus wind or solar will be close to 0 cents because nobody else’s wants to buy it. That’s a huge difference.
We’ve been over your argument before. Your math doesn’t work out. It never will, either, because simple energy physics will never be negated using any form of existing wind and solar energy technology. That’s why all of the wind and solar in the world, combined, still doesn’t equal the output of the handful of nuclear reactors in operation. This is basic math (addition and multiplication) and economics problem. Nobody on this planet can turn the Sun and wind on or off, at-will. That’s why the Germans spent 10 times more than they otherwise would have if they’d simply purchased some nuclear reactors from the French and called it a day. That’s why Germany’s CO2 emissions today are exactly what they were before they started this “renewable energy” nonsense. It was always a pipe dream initiated by religious zealots with lots of dogma and no ability to count, let alone do more complex calculations.
Your problem is that you think the success of our energy systems reflects and is to be judged by EROI, whereas it is the amount of labour power required to sustain a unit of energy that is key - and that labour power is reflected in price. Price is a key factor because it is a way of assessing how efficient in terms of overall labour input a given system is. This is why nuclear power which appears to have such a good EROI always ends up disappointing because of high labour input and the consequent high price. Meanwhile solar power and wind turbines in manufacture and operation require less and less labour input as time goes on.
From US EIA:
The average energy capacity cost of utility-scale battery storage in the United States has rapidly decreased from $2,152 per kilowatthour (kWh) in 2015 to $625/kWh in 2018.
Well, gee whiz, battery storage only needs to decrease by another $624.90 to be on par with generation from reliable nuclear power (and then it's still more expensive since something has to charge that battery). That means Lithium-ion batteries, per unit weight, literally need to become cheaper than dirt. That will never happen in our lifetimes, and if you don't know that by now, then you never will. Power generation beats power storage every day of the week, in terms of energy consumed versus energy produced, basic economics, and all other metrics that actually matter for producing a viable energy supply that is both reliable and durable. 25 years from now, someone (your children) will have to foot the bill to replace a substantial portion of the existing wind turbines and solar panels. You’re simply “hoping” that they’ll be cheaper or we’ll all be a lot richer 25 years from now. Electricity is currently 3 TIMES more expensive in Germany than it is in the US, specifically because THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE IN GERMANY! There's no magic wand we can waive to make the Sun appear whenever and wherever we want it to.
None of what you’re proposing is aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. It’s just throwing money at any random idea that feeds into your pet technology and the ideology backing it. Worse still, it’s not actually solving the problem that our climate change religious fanatics claim they want to solve, which means we still have to deal with the undesirable societal effects associated with the insufferable idiocy of their religion (humans bad, space rock good).
I think you'll find that $624 90 per KwH is the capital cost of creating a storage capacity of 1 KwH, not the price of 1 KwHe from a battery. The iron-air battery folk, Form Energy, claim they can get the capital cost down to 20 cents per KwH. That will of course drive down the operational cost hugely.
As the proportion of electricity generated from green energy increases, of course the proportion of green energy incorporated in PV panels and wind turbines increases, and so carbon emissions decline, all else being equal. We'll probably see a lot of large industrial facilities using hydrogen made by electrolysis, with the process being powered by green energy.
Very well researched kbd. Of one thing we can be sure...Mr Heisler will address none of the facts you lay out, just has he has declined to to respond to my invitation that he give an example of an island that has disappeared below the ocean waves as a consequence of recent anthropogenic climate change.
EdwardHeisler,
EdwardHeisler wrote:14,000 scientists warn of "untold suffering" if we fail to act on climate change
https://www.mic.com/p/14000-scientists- … e-82642062
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021Even if you refuse to acknowledge it, there's an actual difference between climate science and climate activism.
FACT 1
The article from the first link you provided below was written by a man who spent 1 year at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. No major or minor area of study was listed in his Linked-In profile. No other educational or professional qualifications for writing about climate science were provided in either his Linked-In profile or on MIC's website.https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajdellinger
FACT 2
AJ Dellinger's interpretation of what actual scientists have written is every bit as meaningless as yours is, even if the 14,000 scientists have personally contacted him, unless he recorded and then reproduced the content of their conversations or written exchanges, verbatim. No evidence of a personal interaction (such as a Q&A session) with an actual climate scientist backing his claims was provided, so I will assume there is none, until evidence for the same is provided by AJ Dellinger.FACT 3
AJ Dellinger has utterly failed to provide sources for his wild assertions, likely because he's not a scientist and doesn't know how. He's a staff writer for MIC. What he's doing is not reporting on climate science at all, it's reporting on the activism initiated by other activists, who happen to be scientists, but not climatologists.In the same way that I don't ask a cardiologist for his opinion on a brain tumor, because they're not qualified to render informed opinions, I don't ask ecologists for their opinions about climatology, because they're ecologists, not climatologists (people who study climate) or meteorologists (people who study weather) or oceanographers (people who study oceans) or astronomers (people who study stars and other space-based phenomenon that can and does affect climate and weather and oceans). Expertise in cardiology doesn't translate into expertise in neurosurgery, nor vice versa.
The article he provides a link to, his version of citing sources without detailing what, specifically, he has cited, was written by people who are not climate scientists at all, but ecologists, who then make another series of activist claims and assertions with no source material backing up their claims. In short, they're statements of dogmatic belief, no different than religious dogma, not statements backed by evidence, which is what actual science consists of.
FACT 4
From the first linked article, here is where climate activism very clearly overrides any actual climate science:The paper published this week is an update on similar research conducted in 2019, which amassed signatures from more than 11,000 scientists. In the time since that paper was initially published, the world has suffered significantly from extreme weather events caused or made worse by climate change. In 2020, an estimated $63 billion in damage and $268 billion in economic loss was caused by natural disasters. Those events, along with the declining state of health for some of the planet's most important indicators, encouraged more than 3,000 scientists to join onto the latest iteration of warning letter. Now it's up to governments, industry, and the rest of us to actually heed these warnings — or suffer through what comes next.
There's zero science presented here, one useless trivia factoid with no context or explanation given, buried somewhere under a literal mountain of activist BS.
In the time since that paper was initially published, the world has suffered significantly from extreme weather events caused or made worse by climate change.
This is dogmatic religion, not science. To begin with, "the world" cannot suffer anything whatsoever from any change in climate or lack thereof, because "the world" is an inanimate object. Maybe he meant "people living on Earth", but that's not what he actually said. If AJ Dellinger can't distinguish between inanimate objects that can't be physically harmed, and living breathing animals, then there's nothing I trust about his assertions or conclusions about what climate scientists have stated.
In 2020, an estimated $63 billion in damage and $268 billion in economic loss was caused by natural disasters."
Useless trivia alert! This is largely the end result of people who falsely claim to believe in science who are, to this very day, continuing to build ever greater numbers of very expensive structures in cities along coastlines and river basins that are subjected to repeated periodic flooding events through time, since long before humans existed.
The fires caused by a total lack of forestry management and human activities are the other major "natural disaster", but humans setting off fireworks at "gender reveal" parties in the middle of California's forests, or power lines arcing and sparking and igniting forest fires, don't count as "climate disasters" in my book. Those fires accounted for over $12B of the $95B in economic losses in 2020 that NOAA claims were climate-associated "natural disasters". Your guess is as good as mine, regarding what's "natural", i.e. "not man-made", about setting off fireworks in a forest or running high voltage power lines through forests.
Those events, along with the declining state of health for some of the planet's most important indicators, encouraged more than 3,000 scientists to join onto the latest iteration of warning letter.
More personification of inanimate objects. The world is not now and can never be "healthy" or "unhealthy". Whether or not humans or other species of plants and animals can live here is another matter, but the distinction is very important and very real. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Now it's up to governments, industry, and the rest of us to actually heed these warnings — or suffer through what comes next.
Wildly wrong.
1. Governments are collections of people with competing personal interests and some shared interests, all vying for political power.
2. Industry is the reduction of scientific principle to repeatable engineering practices.
3. His quip about "the rest of us heeding fair warning given" is only partially correct. Now it's up to everyone else to evaluate what activists masquerading as scientists are telling them through assertions about data they're not qualified to interpret, or assertions in the absence of data, but without the benefit of knowing much of anything at all about science, and without the benefit of large numbers of actual climate scientists telling people what to make of the data they've collected.
4. Up to this point, all of these climate activists have been little different than "Bill Nye The Science Guy"- someone with no actual science education and experience, but I guess being an engineer is better than having no education regarding scientific principles whatsoever. As long as it agrees with dogmatic religious beliefs, who cares, right?FACT 5
In the paper / "warning letter" that AJ Dellinger cites, the "Conclusions" section from the "concerned scientists" is every bit as fact-free as AJ Dellinger's writing, so I can forgive him for not knowing the difference between science and activism.This is from the second link you provided to "BioScience" (the source of the "warning letter", that was published and signed by a bunch of people who are not climatologists):
Mitigating and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding.
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
There seems to be a complete lack of science embodied in their conclusions.
...honoring human diversity...
Whatever the hell that means, it has nothing to do with science.
Schoolchildren are striking.
That's a sure sign of poor parenting. I guess they're "protesting" having everything handed to them on a silver platter? I've taught my own children to show a little more gratitude for what they've been given.
Ecocide lawsuits
More meaningless word salad to me. It sure as hell isn't about science.
Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change
Who is demanding that everyone lives the way the Amish do? All the Democrats can decide to live like the Amish any time they choose. I promise you that none of my fellow Republicans will lift a finger to stop them. Nobody is forcing any of these hoity-toity kale latte sipping coastie liberals to fly in their private jets or to go to work in their private limousines.
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future.
Equity has nothing to do with climate science or science in general or science at all whatsoever in the real objective universe that real scientists can measure using real tools. The natural world has never been fair or equitable to different forms of life, nor will it ever be. Fairness and equity is a human brain construct, completely subjective in nature, and not measurable using any scientific instrument devised by human beings.
We urge widespread use of vital signs...
Someone needs to tell these fruitcakes posing as ecologists that the Earth doesn't have any vital signs. It's a giant space rock with an atmosphere and oceans of liquid water. It's an inanimate object. The rock will be fine, with or without humanity on it. I promise. If the Earth has fewer people on it who personify rocks, the world would be a better place for those who remain.
The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual.
There's no such thing as "social and economic justice for all". This is ecologist activists pandering to "social justice" activists, some of whom pretend to care about environmental issues to further their own cause. Justice is an individualistic concept. There is no "group justice". If a crook steals something from some one person in a village, then the rest of the village is not automatically harmed, nor is the rest of the village responsible for the anti-social activities of that criminal, unless they helped him commit the crime. Giving birth to someone who later behaves in a criminal manner is not "creating more criminals", either. Personal behavior is an individual choice. You can either be cooperative / collaborative with your fellow humans, sometimes referred to as being "social", or exhibit behaviors that fall within the anti-social spectrum of behaviors. Unfortunately for everyone else, people who advocate for "group justice" frequently tend to be profoundly anti-social in nature.
We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
And there it finally is- the statement of religious belief that all dogmatic deity worshippers make. Using energy to improve our lives is sustaining life. Whether it's use is agreeable to all or not is a political question, not a scientific one.
If these ecologists want everyone to live like the Amish do, then they can lead by example, by refusing to use jets and cars and computers and the internet. You, Mr Heisler, are welcome to join them in their quest to regress back to before industrialization human civilization. The rest of us are likewise free to carry on with our industrialization activities.
All of that ink was required to properly respond to that pithy "I follow the science" comment. That is why nobody listens to scientists. It's so cheap and easy to go sloganeering the way our activists do, yet so complicated and long-winded and boring as hell to fully explain why bad ideas with vague explanations or tenuous connection to reality are bad.
Just remember by “unvaccinated but infected with Covid” they mean “with Covid before two weeks have elapsed after receiving a second shot of the vaccine or having remained unvaccinated” NOT “with Covid after having received no vaccine shot”
The death rate for families in America is well hidden in the collected data of the cdc at this point and is hard to corelate to what is happening now.
All we are getting from the media is blame the unvaccinated, that the number dieing is all from that one action ect....begging and dieing asking for the vaccines which are not a cure....Since the one shot did not work and another with 2 shots did not as well to stave off covid why not try A mixed vaccination of first AstraZeneca and then a Pfizer COVID-19 shot boosted neutralizing antibody levels by six times compared with two dozes of either